Some lenses have a preferred age vs. image quality. For example, some claim the 100-400 made in the last two to three years have a little bit better IQ on the long end than those a little older. With that in mind, Is there any optical or mechincal advantage associated with the age of a 500/4 IS? As long as the lens was handled, stored and cared for properly, are there any advantages of a two or three year old 500/4 vs an eight to ten year old 500/4?

I am on my 3rd 500 f/4 copy since 2006. Can't tell them apart....they have all been excellent.
That reinforces my belief that manufacture date alone plays no factor in their IQ.
Just look at the lens mount as well as the flocking inside the hood......the condition of those should tell you how much a lens has been used.

Hey Peter (Jim, and all) Happy New Year! Thanks for looking after me here. To answer your question, well...no. I'm having too much EOS fun, and looking for more. I thought a 500 would be a nice addition to the arsenol. I've just come to my senses that if I want to grab onto a 500 without doing a second mortgage, I better get on the ball. I have a shot at an older 500 IS (around year 2000), local sale, extremely reputable deal, at a...well...as good as it gets price. I even have an offer to try before you buy. So it's all great news for me, especially since the misses is being very supportive. I just want to make sure an older 500 will deliver like a newer one and money is being wisely spent. (that line will get me in trouble )

mptnest wrote:
Some lenses have a preferred age vs. image quality. For example, some claim the 100-400 made in the last two to three years have a little bit better IQ on the long end than those a little older. With that in mind, Is there any optical or mechincal advantage associated with the age of a 500/4 IS? As long as the lens was handled, stored and cared for properly, are there any advantages of a two or three year old 500/4 vs an eight to ten year old 500/4?

There is no difference in the 500/4 IS that I know of other than the possible cosmetics of the IS and AF slide switches. In fact some people were complaining about 5 years ago that the newer lenses did not seem to be as good as the earlier ones, but I think that was a change in user expectations as digital needs changed. I'd rather have a nice clean 500/4 IS from 2000 than a well used one from 2010.

big country wrote:
do you have proof about your 100-400 statement or is that more internet hype?

I bought three 100-400s in 2000, 2003 and 2007. The first one was not good and the last one is better than the second. My limited use of a 2010 lens was about same as my 2007, certainly not any better. (I know that is still a very small sample.) One issue to consider is that the 100-400 has a complex mechanical design and older, more heavily used examples may suffer from degraded alignments. It is not a lens I'd buy used without testing first or having a return policy.

Since I've begun following the FM Canon Gear forum, I recall only two instances where 500 f/4 owners have reported problems with their lenses: one was the AF calibration which Canon remedied under warranty. The other one might have been a camera AF problem as well, but I never learned what the closure was.

All in all, practically everybody you speak to seems very happy with their 500 f/4.
I like to think of 500 f/4 as a "gold standard" of wildlife photography, and the only Canon lens which IMO performs a bit better is 400 f/2.8 IS (MkI and MkII).